[applejuice]

Sorry, that is a quote from a distinguished one of their own.

Are you saying that doctors are taking drugs because parents are becoming informed? THAT is low.

Should parents stop doing research regarding drugs and procedures?

Should parents just do what they are told to do by any doctor so the doctor will not become an addict? Does that make any sense at all?

Doctors and all healthcare professionals have always a bad reputation for abusing drugs; it is an occupational hazard. Is it the patients' fault, ie, the laity?

 

[kathymuggle]

Some Doctors are even talking about how depressed they are that that are seen as the enemy and that some parents trust "Dr. Google" over them.

http://www.scarymommy.com/trust-your-pediatrician/?utm_source=FBOnsite

Also frankly, implying doctors need to be drug addicts to support vaccination is low, even for the antivax crowd.

Change is hard. Not having the power you used to can be hard. Still, there is a lot of evidence that informed patients have better outcomes, so I think the doctors should adjust.

Lastly, your bottom line is flag worthy. It infers that non-vaxxers are typically low. Why are you trying to stir the pot? Everyone is frustrated with everyone else, but deliberately trying to provoke is ...smh.

 

[samaxtics]

Also frankly, implying doctors need to be drug addicts to support vaccination is low, even for the antivax crowd.

That's not what I meant.

If a doctor is going to be so dogmatic that they are going to turf a patient for asserting their right to decline a medical procedure that comes with real risks, then given the rate of drug and alcohol abuse in the medical profession (which is higher than in the general population) I think it is reasonable to see if that doctor is following the rules themselves.

Given the rate of medical error that results in injury or death, it would probably be prudent to periodically drug test all doctors.

 

[Deborah]

This thread made me think of the choice that many women made between starvation and prostitution back in the good old days before there were welfare programs. http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/blo...k-and-sex-work-in-nineteenth-century-america/

Economic necessity and the desire for an easier life drove many women to the sex trade in the decades leading up to the Civil War. In 1859, Dr. William Sanger’s study of 2000 prostitutes confined in New York’s Blackwell’s Island prison revealed that half of the women had worked as domestic servants before entering the sex trade, and another quarter had worked as seamstresses. (Abused and abandoned wives made up the remaining one-fourth.) According to Sanger’s study, one-fourth of the women at Blackwell’s Island reported being destitute before entering the sex trade. Their stories revealed the desperate circumstances of working-class women in nineteenth-century America. As the case history of one inmate tersely put it: “No work, no money, and no home.”
Although most women clearly regarded sex work as a last resort, one-quarter of the women in Dr. Sanger’s study claimed to have entered the trade voluntarily.This choice, of course, was shaped by financial considerations.While prostitution was rarely lucrative, a sex worker could earn as much in an hour as a seamstress could in a day. As feminist speaker Caroline Dall told a Boston audience in 1859: “Lust is a better paymaster than the mill-owner or a tailor. Compare the price of labor with the price of dishonor, and you will cease to be surprised that women fall.” Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison quoted a prostitute’s response to a well-intentioned missionary:

I know you mean well by coming here, but I don’t know how much good it will do. Instead of coming here you had better go around to some of these factories and shops that grind a poor girl down to $2 a week, and get them to pay better wages. It’s no use; a girl can’t live on what she gets.”
​

Add to that that some women also had children to house and feed, and there were simply no options left.

But, we can call prostitution a choice based on some of the arguments presented in this thread...

 

[Turquesa]

This thread made me think of the choice that many women made between starvation and prostitution back in the good old days before there were welfare programs. http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/blo...k-and-sex-work-in-nineteenth-century-america/

Add to that that some women also had children to house and feed, and there were simply no options left.

But, we can call prostitution a choice based on some of the arguments presented in this thread...

I've said this before, and it applies to vaccines and a multitude of other topics. There is a difference between choice and free choice.

If prostitutes can get into the profession whenever the want and leave whenever they want, then they have a free choice. But if any coercive forces got them into it and are keeping them in it, (e.g. poverty, desperation, addiction, their pimps, trafficking/slavery), then there's no free choice.

 

[Deborah]

I've said this before, and it applies to vaccines and a multitude of other topics. There is a difference between choice and free choice.

If prostitutes can get into the profession whenever the want and leave whenever they want, then they have a free choice. But if any coercive forces got them into it and are keeping them in it, (e.g. poverty, desperation, addiction, their pimps, trafficking/slavery), then there's no free choice.

One of the things your list points to is trickery and manipulation. Pimps may recruit girls by lying to them, manipulating them, confusing them or intimidating them. Free choice includes having a full package of information, wouldn't you agree?

Vaccine programs that are based on censorship, extreme simplification of data, manipulation, intimidation or any form of threats (some of this was discussed earlier in the thread) don't involve free choice. Real choice involves having the options laid out for someone and then everyone stepping back and allowing the person making the choice to sort through the information and choices and making up their own minds.

It suddenly struck me that I've never seen a pro-vaccine person here say: "Well, I gave in and vaccinated because my doctor intimidated (or scared, manipulated, frightened, bullied, harassed, threatened)" no, what they say is: "I did my own research and came down in favor of vaccination for my children and for the community in general."

Why don't they want everyone to have the chance to do their own research and make up their own minds?

 

[Deborah]

http://i2p.com.au/the-safe-vaccination-debate-dr-judy-wilyman-reports/

The Australian government’s vaccination policies (which are now mandatory to receive some social welfare benefits and in many employment situations) are not designed to protect public health. This is because they coerce the public into using a medical intervention that is being promoted on false claims of safety, efficacy and necessity. The public is being over-vaccinated and cannot freely choose vaccines when they are linked to financial payments and their employment situations. The Australian government is not being honest by claiming that people still have a free choice in these situations. These policies are not compatible with human rights codes or the Australian Immunisation Handbook (ed.10) for informed consent and this is detrimental to human health. Doctors are also paid bonuses for increasing the “vaccination rates” of the population and this is being used as a surrogate measure for the “health” of the population – without assessing the actual health of infants and children after using multiple vaccines at the prime time of their development.

The word "choice" is being redefined around the world.

 

[Deborah]

With the discussions around COVID vaccines being mandatory or not, I thought this thread was a good fit.

 

[teacozy]

Looks like some areas of Canada are looking into maybe requiring proof of vaccination to enter and go certain places, like movie theaters. I would not be surprised if other countries follow and proof of vaccination will almost certainly be required to travel internationally anywhere.

Ontario’s minister of health said the Ford government will eventually provide people that get vaccinated some form of proof that would allow them to travel or enter certain businesses, such as movie theatres.

“That is going to be really important for people to have for travel purposes,” she said. “Perhaps for work purposes, for going to theatres or cinemas or any other places where people will be in closer, physical contact when we get through the worst of the pandemic.”

"This is not going to be a mandatory campaign. It will be voluntary. There may be some restrictions placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go to theatres and other places, but that will be on individual people to decide.”

 

[kathymuggle]

Looks like some areas of Canada are looking into maybe requiring proof of vaccination to enter and go certain places, like movie theaters. I would not be surprised if other countries follow and proof of vaccination will almost certainly be required to travel internationally anywhere.

Meh. We will see. No snark. Everything around COVID and rules is so convoluted. Ford worries (as all leaders do) about the economy. I am not sure he will make vaccines mandatory for things like movies. I also truthfully imagine that the public will have a fit if required to show proof of vaccine to go to the movies. This is pretty sensitive information you might not want to hand out. And what will the theatres do with the info? How will they store it is keeping with privacy and other laws? I am just not sure I see it - and I live here.

ATM I think most threats to make vaccines mandatory to do stuff are just that - threats to try and ensure compliance. Not sure they will actually fly.

 

[emmy526]

Looks like some areas of Canada are looking into maybe requiring proof of vaccination to enter and go certain places, like movie theaters. I would not be surprised if other countries follow and proof of vaccination will almost certainly be required to travel internationally anywhere.

sounds more like scaremongering and fearmongering to me....

coming from someone who doesnt live in Canada, how do you make such an assumption?

pay attention to your own backyard --

Who is suing?
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit Tuesday. The President on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene -- basically a request to join the lawsuit, asking for the same result. Seventeen GOP states are backing the effort as well.
What do the Republicans want?
Essentially, to swing the election to Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/trump-texas-supreme-court-election/index.html

 

[Hyacinthe]

Looks like some areas of Canada are looking into maybe requiring proof of vaccination to enter and go certain places, like movie theaters. I would not be surprised if other countries follow and proof of vaccination will almost certainly be required to travel internationally anywhere.

I live in Canada part of the year (or at least I did before Covid border closures), and I can't see this ever happening there. Only two provinces even have school vaccination requirements (Ontario & New Brunswick - both allowing religious/philosophical exemptions, Manitoba repealed their school MMR requirement in 2014). Vaccines are easier to track in Canada, as they have a national healthcare system/database - so in some ways requiring proof, and verifying proof, of vaccination would be easier there. But the Canadian psychology, at least in my experience, is quite different than that of the US; and the vaccine issue (with a few exceptions) has not been as politicized as it is in the US. For example the recent attempt to eliminate the religious/philosophical exemptions to school vaccines in N.B. was roundly defeated by liberals and conservatives alike (with the Green party members abstaining from voting).

This could all change of course, but I see mandates/proof of vaccination being attempted in the US first, before any other first-world country (and quite likely maybe the only first-world country). The US could become a bit of a hodgepodge, too, with, for example, New York requiring proof of vaccination to enter certain venues, and Texans freely going to the movies, etc.

Interestingly, the World Health Organization has come out against mandates for the Covid vaccine:
WHO Opposes Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/world-health-organization-against-mandatory-covid-19-vaccines-13722756

GENEVA: The World Health Organization said on Monday (Dec 7) that persuading people on the merits of a COVID-19 vaccine would be far more effective than trying to make the jabs mandatory.

...the UN health agency insisted making it mandatory to get immunised against the disease would be the wrong road to take, adding there were examples in the past of mandating vaccines use only to see it backfire with greater opposition to them.

"I don't think that mandates are the direction to go in here, especially for these vaccines," Kate O'Brien, director of the WHO's immunisation department, told a virtual news conference.

"It is a much better position to actually encourage and facilitate the vaccination without those kinds of requirements.

"I don't think we envision any countries creating a mandate for vaccination."

...said the organisation's emergencies director Michael Ryan.

"We need to convince people and we need to persuade."

As for making vaccines mandatory, he said: "I think all of us who work in public health would rather avoid that as a means for getting people vaccinated.

"We are much better served to present people with the data and the benefits and let people make up their own minds."